Both Panu and Harvey expressed doubts about this remark I made: "I
believe this [the Kripke] proof also shows--please correct me if I'm
wrong--that a specifically *mathematical* proposition (though an
unusual one) cannot be proved nor can its negation. (I.e., Godel's
first theorem.)
After they read the proof carefully, do Panu and/or Harvey think the
proposition *is* in a sense mathematical (though as I said,
"unusual"), or do they think it is *not*, and why? Similarly, what
do others think?
(Hmmm, what now occurs to me is to find out what Putnam thinks.)
Charlie Silver